uen, and bearing in mind that it is not the way of
ecclesiastical traditions to err on the side of lateness, the first dated
bishops in the several dioceses are as follows. The third bishop of Rouen,
or, as some count, the second, was at Arles in 314. The third bishop of
Bayeux dates 458-65. The second bishop of Avranches, 511. The second
bishop of Evreux, 450-90. The fifth bishop of Seez, 500. The first bishop
of Lisieux whose name is recorded, 538. The first bishop of Coutances,
about 475. As three British bishops were at Arles in 314, when only one of
these seven bishoprics was in existence, the antiquity and completeness of
our island Church compares very favourably with that of the archdiocese of
Rouen. Passing to the archdiocese of Cambray, the first bishop of Cambray
died in 540; the first bishop of Tournay is dated 297; the other
bishoprics are late. In the archdiocese of Rheims, the two first bishops
of Rheims, paired together, are assigned to 290; the two first bishops of
Soissons were the same pair as those of Rheims; the first bishop of Laon
was at Orleans in 549; Beauvais, 250; Chalons about 280; the second bishop
of Amiens, 346; the ninth of Senlis, 511; the second of Boulogne, 552.
Here, again, our three bishops at Arles in 314 compare favourably with
this great archdiocese, which was in the most accessible part of Gaul for
the insular Britons.

Unless we are prepared to believe that our island was Christianised by
some influence apart from Gaul, and reaching us through some route other
than that of Gaul--and I do not see any evidence for anything of the
kind--we must, I think, take it that our position was that of younger
sister to the Church in Gaul. All the indications point in that direction.
It is most cruel that the British history has all been blotted out, by the
severity of the English conquest and the barbarity of the bordering
tribes. In Gaul, the history was not blotted out by the successful
invasion of the Franks. Gregory of Tours died in the year 594, of which we
have said so much. He was a Gallo-Roman, one of the race overrun by the
Franks; and yet he writes the history of the Franks, putting on record an
immense amount of information about the earlier Gaulish times--not very
trustworthy, it is true. But for the sack of London by the East Saxons, of
which I shall have to speak later, we might have had a history that would
solve all our doubts, from a Brito-Roman Bishop of London, exactly
cont